Your statement may very well be true. The scene looks like it has no light source at all - Only ambient light.

The value of this image is self evident. I only wonder what it looked like if there was a light source.

Nevertheless, I am not challenging your or anyone elses use of HDR. My own "taste" for replicating the scene as the human eye see's it, is subjective. But the many demonstrations I've posted demonstrate that those who DO want to reproduce what the human eye see's often use HDR when it is not necessary; that many of the claims about HDR are simply not valid.

Dave

It's all good. This forum is all about sharing ideas and opinions. All of us are individuals with various backgrounds. I did a lot of oil paintings when I was a teenager and that has carried over to photography. Without good composition a photograph will fail no matter what you do to it. Sooner or later HDR will fade away. Just a matter of time before technology catches up to it...

Very good, Dave - I must say!!
Considering your "material" was a WEB-sized 800x640 picture this was outstanding work.

Thanks for the edit! Admitting that HDR is good for dynamic range, must have cost you an arm and a leg...

All's well, Dave - just had to tease you a little!

I will pause and give you some advice.

You have spent a while in mastering Photomatrix. A good idea! You really enjoy these landscape shots, and HDR is often a key tool in the process.

But the primary tools of a photographer in todays world is the digital darkroom. Whether Photoshop, or any other image processing program. It would seem to me that a photographer, deeply immersed in his dark room, is handicapping themselves by investing all that time and trouble in learning only one tool in his tool box, when there are so many others there, laying around and demanding to be used.

I ask, has it occured to you to process your different exposure BEFORE you use Photomatrix?

...What's that expression? "If your only tool is a hammer, pretty soon everything looks like a nail?"

Ha-ha!

Touché - but I can just as easily turn that 'accusation' around and hit you with the following:
- If you only use Ps then pretty soon all your photos will look like Photoshop-pictures....

I bet you are going through a rutine which is more or less the same every time when you process your wildlifeshots - after you come home with a memory-card full of exposures.

All of a sudden you are telling me to change software - because otherwise I will stagnate (I presume that's what you have in mind with your hammer / nail-analogy...?).

What is this? A crusade to ridicule the use of HDR-software? - because that is what 'shines through' here, Dave. What makes you the judge of all judges of what software to use and by whom? C'mon - give it a rest.

I use the software that gives me the output that closely resembles my own (not yours!) idea of what I felt when I took the shots. Because I shoot mostly on a hunch of feelings, more than on calculations by the brain. You may not have noticed this, but 95% of my photos are mood-based pictures, which are a bit different from what you are doing with your bird-shots, where perfect light, exposure and best available framing with long tele-lenses is essential. Your subject has to be recognised as that of a species, while my pictures are mostly open to mood-interpretion (difficult word to spell for a foreigner!).

Those who can, do. Those who can't take an opposing position and try to argue it to death. Its this crusade to shoot down HDR software that baffles me. Comparing ways to get the same result and wanting to be using the best way and convince others to do it too to what end? If working Raw files proves to be better than using HDR software what does that prove? Using the software is fun. The results are quick and vast. The best way to end this is to just ignore it. Its all so bloody silly. Also excuses aside your rendition of Walters scenic shot is not as good as or near as good as his original posted shot. Much detail is missing. I know you used a smaller file. I dont think you could match or improve on his HDR final if you were even given his original middle file to work from.

Why is it that every suggestion I make (and most of them favor using HDR are interpreted as attacks on HDR, and HDR software? Is it an attack on HDR software to demonstrate that it's not always needed?

Is it an attack on HDR software to defend Photoshop (or similar programs) as the primary tool that photographers need?

Is this some sort of lose/lose discussion in which I'm the only one who gets something out of it?

Touché - but I can just as easily turn that 'accusation' around and hit you with the following:
- If you only use Ps then pretty soon all your photos will look like Photoshop-pictures....

I bet you are going through a rutine which is more or less the same every time when you process your wildlifeshots - after you come home with a memory-card full of exposures.

All of a sudden you are telling me to change software - because otherwise I will stagnate (I presume that's what you have in mind with your hammer / nail-analogy...?).

What is this? A crusade to ridicule the use of HDR-software? - because that is what 'shines through' here, Dave. What makes you the judge of all judges of what software to use and by whom? C'mon - give it a rest.

I use the software that gives me the output that closely resembles my own (not yours!) idea of what I felt when I took the shots. Because I shoot mostly on a hunch of feelings, more than on calculations by the brain. You may not have noticed this, but 95% of my photos are mood-based pictures, which are a bit different from what you are doing with your bird-shots, where perfect light, exposure and best available framing with long tele-lenses is essential. Your subject has to be recognised as that of a species, while my pictures are mostly open to mood-interpretion (difficult word to spell for a foreigner!).

Photoshop is a full featured Darkroom, in which various HDR plug-ins can be used in addition to all the other options.

I have pointed out, and you have confirmed, that it's never even occured to you to take advantage of this primary tool. Moreover, Photoshop is not the only good image processing program available. For example when it comes to color correction, I load my images in Das Repro, and find out how they will actually look when printed.

I use modeling and rendering programs.

You presented me with a screen capture of many of the options of DPHDR. That's nice. On the other hand I would need a thread of 300 posts to show you a majority of the options of Photoshop, or for that matter any of a number of other choices.

Why is it that every suggestion I make (and most of them favor using HDR are interpreted as attacks on HDR, and HDR software? Is it an attack on HDR software to demonstrate that it's not always needed?

Is it an attack on HDR software to defend Photoshop (or similar programs) as the primary tool that photographers need?

Is this some sort of lose/lose discussion in which I'm the only one who gets something out of it?

The mystery deepens...

Dave

Many people either dont want to spend the money on Photoshop or are intimidated by its learning curve. Those who use it know there is nothing like it. All encompassing it can do everything you can think of and a lot you havent. But this is an HDR thread and not one devoted to Photoshop. Its to show the results of using HDR software in specific. If someone was to do an HDR looking shot using Photoshop or some other program then by all means show it and explain what you did. But to go on and say its better and that everyone should embrace that way isnt right. I dont think it has to be pointed out to anyone how good Photoshop is. Many who dont use it are envious of those who do. Its quite unecessary because Photoshop is available to everyone, from the rich to the poor.

Another quote Chato: I will pause and give you some advice.

You have spent a while in mastering Photomatrix. A good idea! You really enjoy these landscape shots, and HDR is often a key tool in the process.

But the primary tools of a photographer in todays world is the digital darkroom. Whether Photoshop, or any other image processing program. It would seem to me that a photographer, deeply immersed in his dark room, is handicapping themselves by investing all that time and trouble in learning only one tool in his tool box, when there are so many others there, laying around and demanding to be used.

I ask, has it occured to you to process your different exposure BEFORE you use Photomatrix?

Dave

Why would he do that even if it did occur to him? He has a procedure which works very well. Why change it, unless it doesnt work any more? And if he can do it without using Photoshop more power to him. While you say you arent knocking HDR I still dont understand what it is you are trying to do? Whatever it is it isnt working. One thing I do agree with is your last statement about photographers immersing themselves in the dark room handicapping themselves with one program. HDR is one look to a photo. There are others such as the Orton Effect, the Dave Hill look all kinds of styles which are shown by the likes of Spy, Dwayne Oakes, Torgny and others. Explore it all, but for now this thread is for those who are exploring HDR in all its colorful and b&w glory.